Shaari Teshuva by R. Yona

Why it is important to remember the past is to learn lessons for the present.The idea here is what it says the the Gemara in Shabat אין יסורים בלי עוון  "There are no problems without sin." That is all problems that one has are either directly from some sin or indirectly. [The Gemara over there had a question about death also, but it concludes that death can come without sin- but not other kinds of problems.]

The idea is furthermore that Repentance involves remembering what one has done wrong in the past and trying to change for the better.

In any case the book Shaari Teshuva by R. Yona is one of the canonical books of Musar which are a core part of the Musar Movement. And I definitely was into that book when I was at the Mir.

I also can not see how it is possible to improve oneself without learning from the past. Maybe in theory it is possible to simply find the right path--the truth- and stick with it. But in fact unless one is a god-and has infallible knowledge--then it always makes sense to recheck your homework.

In fact from what I recall String Theory started out by the fact that one of its founders went back to recheck his work and by that discovered one of the first equations of String Theory.

I can not think of a worse nightmare than imagining the religious to be in charge.

I was in the Breslov Beit Midrash today [the Na Nach group] and listened a few minutes to a book written by Rav Natan [a disciple of Rav Nahman]. [I mean to say that the general approach is to read of books of Rav Nahman and Rav Natan aloud--and I listened a few minutes.
The statement of Rav Natan was basically about "חכמות חיצוניות" [secular wisdom].
 This seems to be an argument between rishonim. There are those that go along the lines of Saadia Gaon and the Rambam that see certain secular subjects as important. There are others that say no.

I am not really sure how to deal with this issue. To me the whole emphasis on not learning secular wisdom seems to be with intention to create a kind of alternative society. --The idea is to create a kind of insulation from the outside world.
 The same thing seems to be the emphasis on dress and the skull cap and women's dress. It all seems to be geared towards creating a separate society where the religious are in charge.

I can not think of a worse nightmare than imagining the religious to be in charge. Enough said for the wise.

On the other hand I can how a great deal of secular subjects are rotten--like anything that has the word "studies".

My own approach is more or less based on the Rambam in Mishne Torah in the part that deal with learning Torah and the part in particular that says to divide one's time into three parts. There the Ramabm says one part goes for the written law. Another third for the Oral Law. And the third for Gemara. Then the Rambam adds, "The subjects discussed in the first four chapter of Mishna Torah which are called Pardes are in the category of the Gemara."
Those subjects are what the ancient Greeks called Physics and Meta-physics. [The Ramabm repeats this in the Guide.] You can see this in the Hovot Levavot also[Obligations of the Heart by Ibn Pakuda].

I can see how the world changed from when I was growing up. The world I grew up in was optimistic and open. Southern California. Things were a little different in the two yeshivas I went to  in NY Shar Yashuv and the Mir but the same atmosphere or classic American optimism was there. Then I kind of wne into a period of hibernation. I was in the Vishniz community in Meor Haim in Safed for a few years and totally lost contact with the outside world. I spent most of my time in the basic path path of Rav Nahman from Breslov of Hitbodadut.[[Talking with God in the forest]. And there was a kind of Divine light that filled the atmosphere in those days. Then it all fell through. So when I awoke the world had changed drastically. I think a lot had to do with crimes that had changed people's perspective. The world was filled with suspicion one for the other. Maybe it is justified suspicion. But it seems to me it is usually misplaced. There are lots of deviants and sadistic monstors. But they are never the people that are usually suspected.

As Rav Nahman himself made a point of this in his critique of Torah Scholars that are demons.

Today I would probably have taken Rav Nahman's teachings in a more balanced way. My center of gravity would be along the lines of the Gra and Rav Shach, while at the same time I would try to follow what is valuable and important in Rav Nahman's teachings.

Rambam in laws of Nedarim chapter 1 law 19.

I have a question in the Rambam in laws of Nedarim chapter 1 law 19.
The question that I have is one that it looks like Rav Joseph Karo and the Radvaz answer but their answers look to me to be hard to understand.


The basic issue is this. There is a teaching in the Gemara that says hulin the hulin like hulin whether \I will eat of yours or will not is permitted. "'Hulin I will not eat of yours' is forbidden. 'Not hulin I will not eat of yours' is permitted."

The Rambam says, "'Not hulin I will not eat of yours' is forbidden." [Nedarim 1:19]

Now with the Radvaz, the Rambam holds like R Yehuda that from a negative we can understand what would result in a positive. So it makes sense why the Rambam would disagree with the end of that teaching. However the question I have is that, "How does it make sense?" Should not two negatives result in a positive?

Rav Joseph Karo holds the Rambam holds like R Meir that from a negative one can not derive a positive. So I am not sure how to deal with this issue. I saw a few days ago that Rav Shach has some ideas on this subject but I still have not gotten a chance to get over to the Litvak Beit Midrash where the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach is located to study carefully what he says.

I just wanted to give a short idea of who I am for those that are wondering. I was born into an amazing family. My parents loved each other and us [their children very much]. I went to public school until it became time to choose a university and instead i decided to go to Shar Yashuv [a Litvak Yeshiva in NY] and then the Mir in NY. And then to Israel.
The experience I had in the Mir was formative of my attitudes about the importance of learning Torah and trust in God.
I have not been able to continue on that path very well and so I also went to Polytechnic Institute of NYU for Physics.

the existence of time

McTaggart argues against the existence of time. I forget the argument. I was not like Kant's. But locality is well established. as in Special Relativity. Which means cause and effect have to be close to each other and in sequence. The only way I can see Kant's point is if time is circular like Godel wanted to show.


The way you can see that causality [or locality is correct is by GPS [Global Positioning System]. Both Special Relativity and General Relativity have to be right for the system to work at all.
However there is a  set up that Einstein Podolsky Rosen thought up that Bell showed that Quantum Mechanics is  right. So you can  show from the inequality of Bell that either locality is not right or that particles do not have classical values until measured. So since we know locality is right therefore we have to take the second choice. Particles do not have classical values until measured.

I one time wrote to Dr Kelley Ross asking about this result which looks a  lot like Kant. I asked him that de-coherence is well known phenomenon. That means the wave function of particles collapses even just because a particle interacts with another particle. That is what makes Quantum computing hard to set up. He answered that some people argue that if your look at the big picture in which the lab itself is a part of the system we still have the result that things do not have classical values until measured.

Just to be a little more clear about the issues I raised in my blog from yesterday I want to explain a little as best I can.

The idea of R.   Meier is this. You can not derive a plus from a minus, a yes from a no. That means let us says you have a sentence, "If it is raining it must be wet outside." To R. Meier you can not derive "If it is not raining it is dry outside." And this came up in one of my little books on Shas. But I had forgotten this whole issue about R Meir.

This comes up in the Talumd tractate "Nedarim" page 11 side A. and in the book of Rav Shach on the Rambam laws of nedarim vows chapter 1 law 18 [actually 18 through 20].

The problem in the Rambam is in law 18 he says, '"That which I will eat of yours is not secular" and then he is forbidden to eat of anything that belongs to the other person.' That is like the Sages against R Meir.. Then in law 20 he says, "That which I will eat of yours is secular or that which I will not eat of yours is secular and that is allowed to eat from the other fellow,' and that is like R Meir. So everyone wants to answer how can the Rambam decide the law in two contradictory ways? The Radvaz [Rav David ben Zimrah], the Migdal Oz [Rav Shem Tov from Spain], and Rav Elazar Shach  and Rav Yoseph Karo each try to answer this question.


I have nothing new to add here except that I can see that I really must have been a real ignoramus (am haaretz) when I was at the Mir, because this exact chapter in Nedarim is what the whole yeshiva was learning in my first six months there and I can see now that I was completely unaware of the issues that ought to be obvious to anyone learning Nedarim--but I missed all these issues.